Steve said to Dan:
...Instead of arguing whether or not Pirsig's statement is a middle ground
between free will and determinism [dmb] or better viewed as a rejection of both
horns of the traditional SOM free will/determinism dilemma in favor of a whole
new reformulation of the question of freedom [steve], we might move forward
toward discussing Pirsig's reformulation itself.
dmb replied:
You keep pretending that I'm not talking about freedom and constraint within
the terms of Pirsig's reformulation no matter how many times I tell you
otherwise.
Steve replied to the reply:
(I'm not pretending anything.)
dmb says:
Look again at the sentence you wrote to Dan. Did you or did you not
characterize my position as a middle ground between the horns and contrast it
with a rejection of the traditional SOM dilemma? That is more than just an
implication and that's specifically what I mean when I say you are pretending
that I'm talking about free will and determinism in terms of the traditional
SOM dilemma. That is the basis of my charge. If your denial is to have any
plausibility, you're going to have to say something about the substance of your
own sentence, the one above that follows "Steve said to Dan". As it stands,
you've only offered a naked contradiction, unclothed by any argument, reason,
explanation or support of any kind.
Steve continued:
We agree that in the MOQ our behavior is free to some extent and not free to
some extent, but what does this mean? If reality is Quality, then I wonder
"Free from what? Controlled by what?" I think Pirsig's reformulation cashes
out to, as Matt said months ago, "when you be static, you be static. When you
be dynamic, you be dynamic!" It doesn't tell us how to tell the difference and
give us a basis for culpability and praiseworthiness in the sense you have been
punching up.
dmb says:
Pirsig's formulation cashes out to what? I do not get what you're saying and
the way you're saying it - between questions that seem to express a general
bewilderment - makes your vague claim seem even more vague. These basic
questions seem to be very much at odds with the certainty with which you've
been making claims on this issue too.
Why does the equation of Quality and reality make you wonder what we are free
from or what we are controlled by? If reality is Quality, then freedom and
constraint are both features of reality. What's the problem. You can't be
saying that freedom and constraint can only come from outside of reality, so
what are you getting at?
If we are controlled to the extent that we follow static patterns, then freedom
is just freedom from that control. What's the problem? I mean, aren't both of
your questions "free from what?" and "controlled by what" already answered in
the Pirsig quote? That's how I see it, so I guess I don't even know what you're
asking.
Pirsig's formulation doesn't tell us how to tell the difference? Well, that's a
much broader question and answering it is just a matter of understanding that
particular formulation within the larger context of the MOQ. That's one of the
reasons for reminding you that Pirsig has reformulated the issue on the premise
that value goes all the way down and that the evolutionary unfolding of the
levels is a matter of growth toward ever-increasing freedom. This could just as
right be put in terms of evolution away from control. In fact, Pirsig discusses
the preferences of atoms and the origins of life itself as a movement toward
undefined betterness right there in the same passage where we find the
reformulation. It's very much part of the explanation.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
